Back
2022 Supreme(HP) 76
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Rekesh Kumar, S/o Shri Parkash Chand - Petitioner
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector-cum-Sub Division Office (Civil) – Respondent
Civil Misc. Petition Main (Original) 301 of 2021
Decided On : 08-04-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sh. Anup Rattan, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sh. P.K. Bhatti, Deputy Advocate General, Advocate
Point of Law: Section 11 thereof to pass an award of compensation in respect of following factors the true area of the land, the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; andthe apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 11 and 30 - Land - Litigation - Grievance of petitioner is that impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharmshala in Reference Petition is against law and as a consequence thereof, a situation has arisen that petitioner and similarly situated persons have been made to wait for final outcome of litigation till indefinite period - Whether in a given case decree is joint and inseverable or joint and severable or separable has to be decided - Whether judgment/decree passed in proceedings vis-à-vis remaining parties would suffer vice of contradictory or inconsistent decrees.
Finding of the Court:
Wherever plaintiffs or appellants or petitioners are found to have distinct, separate and independent rights of their own and for purpose of convenience or otherwise, joined together in a single litigation to vindicate their rights, decree passed by court thereon is to be viewed in substance as combination of several decrees in favour of one or other parties and not as a joint and inseverable decree - Mere fact that claims or rights asserted or sought to be vindicated by more than one are similar or identical in nature or by joining together of more than one of such claimants of a particular nature, by itself would not be sufficient in law to treat them as joint claims, so as to render judgment or decree passed thereon a joint and inseverable one - For purposes of abatement or dismissal of entire appeal as not being properly and duly constituted or rendered incompetent for being further proceeded with, requires to be determined only with reference to the fact as to whether judgment/decree passed in proceedings vis-à-vis remaining parties would suffer vice of contradictory or inconsistent decrees.
Result: Answered accordingly.
ORDER :
By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-
“i) That the impugned order Annexure P-3 dated 30.7.2018 may kindly be quashed and set aside and proceed further in the case.
(ii) That respondent may kindly be directed to make inquires with respect to deceased respondents before Reference Court and submit reference for adjudication on merits in time bound manner”.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 30.7.2018, passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharmshala in Reference Petition No. 64 of 2007 is against the law and as a consequence thereof, a situation has arisen that the petitioner and similarly situated persons have been made to wait for the final outcome of the litigation till indefinite period.
3. Respondent passed an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘Act’) as Award No.1 of 2007 on 23.7.2007. As regards apportionment of compensation, it was held as under :-
“Apportionment of compensation
The holders of interest in the land will be paid amount of compensation according to their share recorded in the latest jamabandi and also in the column of ownership as per statement No.55 prepared understanding order of the Financial Commissioner. In case any dispute regarding title or interest is raised, the entire amount will be deposited in the Govt. Treasury or in the court as the case may be and will be paid as and when the dispute is settled amicably or decided by the order of the court. In consideration of their relative rights and keeping in view the principal of equity, the amount of compensation of land under tenancy will be paid in equal share to the tenants and the owners.”
Subsequently, some dispute as regards to apportionment appears to have arisen and hence, respondent No.1 made reference to the Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharmshala vide impugned order dated 30.7.2018 returned the reference Petition to respondent No.1 on account of failure of said respondent to supply the list of legal representative of deceased respondents, despite several opportunities. Noticeably, the reference petition remained pending for almost eleven years before its return.
4. Despite repeated opportunities, respondent has failed to file reply. Since, this Court proposes to dispose of this petition on purely a legal ground, as to legality of the impugned order, the reply on factual side will not otherwise be of much relevance.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records carefully.
6. The Collector under the Act has jurisdiction under Section 11 thereof to pass an award of compensation in respect of following factors:-
“(i) the true area of the land;
(ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and
(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him”.
7. The Collector, while passing Award No. 1 of 2007 dated 23.7.2007 apportioned the compensation in the manner, as noticed above. Be that as it may, the subsequent reference was made to the Court by Collector under Section 30 of the Act and its cognizance was duly taken. Once the reference was made to the Court, it was legally obliged to answer the same in accordance with law. The reference was in respect of the dispute as to apportionment of compensation. Even if some of the parties had died, the learned Court was not precluded from deciding the rights in respect of surviving parties. Adjudication on claims and disputes in respect of apportionment will not result in a joint and inseverable decree. The claim of respective parties as to apportionment could be separately adjudged and the reference could be answered accordingly.
8. In Vengalla Koteswaramma vs. Malampti Surya
